Thursday, June 30, 2011

I see the Gauleiters of Stony Stratford (population 12,000) are licking their lips in anticipation of being the first town in the UK to ban smoking in the street, if the motion put forward by councillor Paul Bartlett is passed by the town council and Milton Keynes Council.

In the event that the motion is passed on 19 July, smokers who have a fag in the street would find themselves at the mercy of plastic police (PCSO's), traffic wardens and (even more alarmingly, shades of 1984 here) members of the public who would be able to report smokers who then would be liable to being fined.

In what "normal" town would a "normal" citizen stick his nose into a fellow citizen's business and report him for smoking in the street?

Bartlett's excuse for his proposed law is that it would "make the environment cleaner" and prevent "harm" to children.

How many times does Nanny use the "won't someone think of the children!" excuse to ram down our throats some unsavoury piece of legislation?

Bartlett appears to have a few "issues" when it comes to smokers/smoking, he is quoted rambling in a disjointed and semi incoherent fashion by the Mail:

"Why should people have the freedom to smoke in my face, pass on diseases and spoil the environment?

When you walk through the high street in any town smoke is in your face and harming you and any children there.

Smokers then get their butt, which is full of saliva, and chuck it on the floor.

It costs millions to clear street rubbish, and goodness knows what a child could pick up from them.

If I make the environment cleaner and save on council tax, sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns."

Given Bartlett's fears over pollution etc, why does he not ban cars as well?

I would have some respect for him if he had at least a consistent policy towards pollution.

Anyhoo, my sympathies to the residents of Stony Stratford, if this law is passed, aside from the impossibility of enforcing this absurd ban it will unleash upon the streets a tidal wave of interfering odious unpleasant busybodies who will use their new "powers" to make everyone lives a misery.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

I do wonder how it is that Nanny's hard pressed public sector has so much time on its hands, that it can stick its nose into the minutiae of people's lives.

Yet, despite the constraints of the cuts and decades of austerity that we are to endure (courtesy of Broon and his cronies), the binmen and acolytes of Coventry City Council have found the time and energy to poke into the contents of Margaret Tasker's bin.

What did they find I hear you ask?

A square shaped plastic ice cream tub!

Problem?

Errmmm...apparently, yes it is a problem.

For why?

It is square shaped.

Eh?

Seemingly the binmen of Coventry do not take square shaped plastic ice cream containers. They refused to empty Mrs Tasker's bin, the bin also contained "correctly shaped" rubbish.

Oh, and in case you are wondering, Mrs Tasker was told by the council that had the ice cream tub been "bottle shaped" the binmen would have taken it!

Unsurprisingly, since this story became something of a hue and cry in the media, the council have realised that they look like morons and have backtracked.

The official "version of reality" from the bunker of Coventry council is that the binmen made a mistake (this of course conveniently ignores the fact that Mrs Tasker was told by a council employee, on the phone, that had the container been bottle shaped it would have been OK).

Seemingly staff will now be "retrained" to teach them which objects can be recycled.

How do you teach "commonsense" to people who clearly have none?

Councils are the enemy of the people!

Learn the above mantra for prep and repeat it, text it and Twatter it to everyone you know.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

As we face many years (decades quite possibly) of austerity and cuts, where people in the real world will have to be flexible and creative in order to get by, it is refreshing to know that Nanny's council jobsworths remain as inflexible and pigheaded as ever.

As Charlotte Cubitt (a lady in her 80's living in Colchester) found to her cost recently, when she was trying to dispose of an old TV.

Mrs Cubitt, unsurprisingly, was unable to lift the TV herself and therefore decided to make use of the council's £11 removal service.

So far so good!

Can you guess what happened next children?

Yes, that's right, on contacting Colchester Borough Council Mrs Cubitt was told that staff could not enter her home and pick up the set.

For why?

Health and safety!

The "solution" offered to Mrs Cubitt was that she would have to carry the TV to the kerbside.

Errrmm...aside from the fact that she couldn't do that, in the event she had her neighbours do it for her wouldn't that lay her open to charges of "fly tipping" (with the associated fine)?

Oh, and supposing one of the neighbours injured themselves would that not lay her open to being sued by them?

Let us be clear, the issue "preventing" the council from providing a service for which they are charging is not health and safety, but their fear of an insurance claim.

As noted many times before on this site, "health and safety" is the excuse trotted out by feeble minded, lazy jobsworths who will not fight spurious ambulance chasing insurance claims (Factoid: insurance companies are conducting a nice little scam by selling details of claimants to ambulance chasing claim firms; the very same firms that the insurance companies accuse of pushing up the price of premiums!).

Friday, June 24, 2011

Tis Wimbledon again and, as sure as eggs are eggs, the rain pisseth down.

I was therefore gemused to read that the rain (not unexpected during Wimbledon) caused the organisers of Wimbledon to turn off the giant TV screen on Murray Mount on Monday.

The reason cited being "health and safety", lest someone slip on the wet grass.

Now at which point I hear you all say "health and safety gone mad" etc etc.

However, my compliments and respect to Judith Hackitt, the chair of the Health and Safety Executive, who gave the Lawn Tennis Association a well deserved public spanking for using "health and safety" as an excuse.

She robustly pointed out that "there is nothing in health and safety legislation which prohibits the continued broadcasting of Centre Court action to the crowds on the hill during the rain. Health and safety is concerned with the proportionate management of real risks caused by work, not attempting to eliminate every minor risk from every moment of people's lives".

She then drove the point home by noting that the LTA should show some balls:

"If the LTA was concerned about people slipping and suing for their injuries, the message should have made clear the decision was 'on insurance grounds'."

As has been noted many times on this site, "health and safety" is used as the catch all excuse by unprofessional, lazy, jobsworths who are fearful of ambulance chasing insurance claims which they cannot be bothered to stand up and fight.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

I see that some 19 year old, Ryan Cleary, claims to have stolen the entire 2011 UK census (data allegedly held safe by US defence contractor Lockheed Martin).

Needless to say there are now claims and counterclaims across the media and internet as to the veracity of Cleary's boasts.

Cleary is apparently now "assisting police with their enquiries".

All I can say is FFS!

Whatever the truth or otherwise of the statements issued by a 19 year old living with his mum, the furore over the possible hack does rather highlight how much data Nanny and her chums hold about us on computers and how much reliance the state places on the "security" of these systems.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Occasionally in the morass of rules and regulations that Nanny spews forth, there is a ray of sunshine in the form of commonsense being applied. Such was the case recently when Chris Grayling, the Employment Minister, told voluntary organisations that they are not required to obtain independent audits and should not be 'bogged down' in red tape.

Charity shops run by volunteers were facing the threat of closure, because they could not afford the costs of complying with additional regulations wrt health and safety.

The shops were fearful that they would have to hire "health and safety consultants" to perform risk assessments etc. Mr Grayling referred to these "consultants" in a refreshingly direct manner, as "cowboys".

As said, this is a rare ray of sunshine. I was, until now, wondering if commonsense had been banned completely.

Friday, June 17, 2011

I am gemused to read that, in this age of cut backs in the health service, Nanny's chums in East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust have focused in on a very important matter and have issued an edict wrt uniforms.

Doctors and nurses now face disciplinary action if they wear clothes that expose their "midriff" or "excessive cleavage".

It seems that some patients have been complaining about cleavages and the like.

The Trust will carry out "audits" of uniforms being worn in its region.

Oh, and as a gemusing aside, staff are also advised to "consider the lingering effects" of cigarette smoke on their breath and clothing.

LOL:)

I thought health staff would know better than to smoke, considering how Nanny and her health staff are always telling us that it is so dangerous;)

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

My thanks to a loyal reader who sent me a very rare, but very welcome, positive story about an organisation displaying commonsense; despite the privations of having to operate in the Nanny state, where commonsense is forbidden.

Kudos and respect to Richmond Housing Partnership, the 'arm's-length' organisation that looks after the former Richmond Upon Thames council homes.

I understand that behind one of the blocks of flats which they are responsible for is a courtyard around some trees. Over the last few years residents in the flats have been planting flowers and little shrubs, and making the area look quite nice and colourful. They really seemed to be looking after the place, planting new flowers in the spring, etc.

Now at this point you would normally expect me to say that the housing trust came along, dug up all the flowers and threatened the residents with prosecution if they dared to carry on planting unauthorised flowers, and the usual health'n'safety guff.

I am well pleased to say that this has not happened at all here. In fact the Trust is going to install a tap in the courtyard, so that people can water the plants, and is even giving them a voucher to buy a hosepipe and some gardening bits and pieces.

Now I know that this may not seem like much. However, consider the bureaucratic and insidious climate in which organisations now have to operate.

I think that Richmond Housing Partnership is to be congratulated for its practical and common-sense solution.

How often do we hear words such as "practical" and "commonsense", in a positive context, these days?

The rationale being that a well trained "observer" will be able to identify if someone is shopping for another person who may be ill or elderly etc.

Nanny wants to find the "hidden carers" in society, in order to offer these people more help.

Apparently the cashiers who have been trained will, once they have identified a "hidden carer", ask customers about their personal circumstances while serving them and then put them in touch with charities that can provide information on financial/practical help etc.

Now I do recognise that many people who care for someone else need help. I can also see that this scheme appears to be very well intentioned.

However, there is something nagging at the back of my mind that makes me feel uncomfortable about training up "civilians" to "observe" ("spy on") other civilians.

I would also like to know in which supermarket Nanny does her shopping, where she thinks a cashier has the time to chat with a customer (as a queue patiently waits and grows behind the "hidden carer"). I have never come across a supermarket where the staff, or customers, have the time to chat beyond a few pleasantries about the weather.

Monday, June 13, 2011

Oh dear, it seems that the party animals attending the Isle of Wight Festival have been banned by Nanny from doing one of the things that they love most.

No, not that!

I mean that Nanny has banned them from bringing folding chairs onto the site. Festival goers were told to leave their seats at the entrance to the site at Seaclose Park in Newport.

For why?

Health and Safety (and for a better customer experience)!

Sounds like a load of old bollocks to me.

Now here's the funny thing, festival goers have been banned from BRINGING folding chairs. However, according to reports, it seems that festival goers were still allowed to buy chairs within the festival site.

Friday, June 10, 2011

I am hugely gemused to see that ours is not the only country prone to Nannyism of the most absurd.

Nanny's chums in France have excelled themselves in a recent edict concerning the use by the media of the words "Twitter" and "Facebook".

French Nanny has banned these two words!

Snort!

Seemingly, French Nanny's official explanation is that media organisations must not be seen to be favourable (or provide free advertising) to any one particular organisation.

The norm for a journalist or media organisation to say "follow me on Twatter" or "link up on Faecesbook" etc. However, French Nanny claims that there are other organisations, outwith Twatter and Faecesbook, that should be given their fair chance too.

All very plausible, maybe;)

However, the real reason is that the sites/words "Twatter" and "Faecesbook" are Anglo Saxon and, as such, an abomination to the culture and language of France.

My French is a tad rusty, therefore please feel free to suggest some alternative French words for "Twatter" and Faecesbook".

Thursday, June 09, 2011

I am gemused to read about how the Upwell Community Primary School in Norfolk has delivered a rather neat lesson in "consequences" (Nanny has taught us not to worry about consequences) to a small group of parents who boycotted a recent children's art event. This caused some distress to children and teachers, as the parents boycott also included removing their kids from school for the day.

Why did this group boycott the event?

The event was open to members of the public, and the parents were worried about their kids interacting with the "public".

Won't someone think of the children???!!

Quite what these parents thought would happen to their kids, given that teachers and parents would be at the public event I don't know?

Anyhoo, the headmaster James McBurney is concerned the same thing would happen on its sports day. Quite rightly he has decided to treat the recalcitrant parents in the same way as one would treat a recalcitrant child, namely he will withdraw a specific privilege.

In this case he has decided, unless the boycott group of parents act like adults, to ban all parents from the forthcoming sports' day. This will ensure that no claim of "mixing with strangers" can be made by the boycott group.

I think Mr McBurney is quite right to do this, he has highlighted very clearly how Nanny's obsessions have ruined people's lives by making them paranoid and fearful.

Needless to say, some sections of the shouty curtain twitching tabloids have completely/deliberately misinterpreted this story!

- his garden hot tub sessions with women- when he had sex in his bedroom- Mr Collins telling two lady friends to "get your tits out"- details of women who stayed overnight- the fact that male visitors wore baseball caps- registration numbers of visitors' vehicles- listening to conversations and noting them down etc.

The result of her actions?

She managed to persuade Colchester Council, her local council, to serve a noise abatement order on Mr Collins, even though his other neighbour said she had never heard any noise.

Mr Collins was fined £100 for breaching the noise abatement order, and faces a further bill of £365 in legal costs after failing in an appeal.

Most of us would conclude that Mrs Palmer was "taking things a bit far". Essex Police, on the other hand, think that she is great and awarded her "Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator of the Year" in January.

Welcome to Nanny Britain, where neighbours are encouraged by the police and state to spy on each other.

Tuesday, June 07, 2011

I am hugely gemused to read of the hooh hah whipped up by certain shouty sections of the tabloid press and Mary Whitehouse wannabees, over a scripted "joke" made by Sandi Toksvig on BBS radio's The News Quiz.

Quote:

"It's the Tories who have put the 'n' into cuts."

End Quote.

Not screamingly funny, and most certainly not original. I would have thought that the script writers could have done better than that.

Anyhoo, needless to say the real issue (ie the BBC's political bias) has been overridden and hijacked, by an eruption of moralising from the tabloids and Mary Whitehouse wannabees over swearing on the radio.

As can be clearly seen from the quote, Ms Toksvig did not swear. Those who know the word she was referring to will understand the "joke", and those that don't won't.

Needless to say Auntie (the BBC) has made a complete hash of handling the barrage of abuse levelled at for using the swear word (which it didn't).

Auntie received a complaint from Colin Harrow (retired General Manager of Mirror Group newspapers) about the "joke" being offensive.

The programme was cleared by Paul Mayhew Archer, then commissioning editor of Radio 4 Comedy, who wrote back to Mr Harrow:

"If my job was simply not to risk offending any listeners I could have cut it instantly.

But that is not my job.

My job here was to balance the offence it might cause some listeners against the delight it might give other listeners.

For good or ill, the word does not seem to have quite the shock value it did.

I am not saying this is a good thing. I am simply saying that I think attitudes shift."

All of which is perfectly reasonable. However, the key issue is that Ms Toksvig did not swear..PERIOD!

Needless to say all and sundry are now tryinmg to grab the "moral majority" headlines. John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons culture, media and sport select committee, called for Ofcom to investigate.

"That word is way out in front in terms of people finding it offensive, and I think to broadcast it on radio at 6.30pm is inappropriate. Even though they did it by implication, nobody was left in any doubt about what was meant....

But I would expect them to be aware of the risk that children might be listening, especially at such an early hour."

Won't someone think of the children!!! (who of course never swear).

For fark's sake, Ms Toksvig didn't use the word!

The issue is not the non swearing by Toksvig, nor the fuss hyped by the tabloids, but the use of a mainstream programme broadcast on the "unbiased" BBC to pursue a political agenda and useing an appallingly old joke in the process.

By all means criticise the BBC, if they have breached their charter by pursuing a political agenda and for using an old joke. However, don't let the tabloids and wannabee Mary Whitehouses hijack the issue for their own purposes and agenda.

Monday, June 06, 2011

It is "interesting" (not really the ideal word, but it is a Monday morning!) to see how thin skinned many people have become as a result of living in the Nanny state.

Simon Ledger (a pub singer/entertainer) discovered this to his cost a couple of months ago, when he was singing at the Driftwood Beach Bar in Sandown on the Isle of Wight.

Mr Ledger regularly performed there, and one song (Kung Foo Fighting) is by all accounts popular with the regulars.

Anyhoo, as Mr ledger was belting it out a man of Chinese origin and his mother were walking past. For reasons that are unclear to my thick skinned hide, they found the song to be offensive and reported it to the police.

Later Mr Ledger, ironically having just finished eating in a Chinese restaurant, was arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated harassment then released on bail.

There don't seem to be any updated media reports about whether the police have formally charged Mr ledger, if anyone has any updated information please feel free to drop me a note.

Friday, June 03, 2011

Nanny has yet again shown her true colours wrt her petty mindedness and jobsworth attitude towards her subjects. Ian Norfolk made the mistake of trying to park his car in Hull some 14 months ago, that was the start of a very sorry tale indeed.

When Mr Norfolk parked his car (perfectly legally) he bought a parking ticket, and went to visit his mum. On his return imagine his surprise to see that, despite the fact the parking ticket had one hour left to run, a traffic warden was in the process of issuing him a ticket.

Ker Farking Ching!

Mr Norfolk explained to the warden that he still had an hour left, the warden agreed and admitted that she had made a mistake.

Problem sorted?

Ermmm...no, not quite!

In Nanny's world nothing is ever so simple; because the warden had officially issued the ticket, the warden told Mr Norfolk he would have to appeal.

Some 14 months on, having taken on Hull City Council and endured threats from bailiffs (who extorted £434.36 from Mr Norfolk and pushed him into mortgage arrears), he has finally managed to get the council to admit that they were wrong and have offered to pay a refund.

Tom was recently having a kickabout with his cousin in his garden in Chalgrove.

Can you guess what happened next?

Yes, that's right, the ball went through a neighbour's greenhouse.

Being a teenager, Tom legged it.

Now at this stage, were people behaving in a reasonably "human" way one would have assumed that at some stage an angry neighbour would have appeared at the front door demanding an apology and restitution etc.

This of course is Nanny Britain and therefore, for reasons that are not clear (it could be that there is ongoing friction between the neighbours), the neighbour reported it to the police.

One therefore might assume that a friendly copper would have turned up and "had a word", thus defusing the situation.

Professional Networks

Google+ Badge

Latest Comments

Recent Tweets

Subscribe To Nanny Knows Best

"In Germany they came first for the Communists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.Then they came for the Jews,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.Then they came for the trade unionists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.The they came for the Catholics,and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me,and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Martin Niemoeller

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible

reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."

Adolf Hitler

Visit "Nanny's Store" and buy from a stunning range of T-shirts, mugs, cards and other items; all showing the distinctive